Subject: City of Ottawa review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005

Transcription

1 March 20, 2014 Dean Mayo Moran AODA Review The Honourable Eric Hoskins, Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment Subject: City of Ottawa review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 The attached document is being submitted to you on behalf of the City of Ottawa, in response to the request for public review of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, The City of Ottawa (the City) remains committed to the intent and goals of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), as well as to the development and implementation of the accessibility standards, enabling a consistent and realistic approach to achieving accessibility in Ontario. The City of Ottawa appreciates the Provincial Government s consultation efforts and the guidelines, resources and tools that have been provided to support the successful implementation of the Accessibility Regulations. The attached document outlines the City s position with respect to the AODA and makes recommendations that are both general and section-specific. The City s submission is focused on operational issues and areas of concern that have emerged through implementation in Ottawa. The City of Ottawa s Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) has, by means of an e- mail vote, confirmed its support for the City s position on the AODA compliance review. Although the AAC was unable to hold a special meeting to discuss the issues in depth, several Accessibility Advisory Committee members mentioned topics that, in their opinion, should be added to the City s report. The City has sent the additional comments from the AAC under separate cover for your consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important legislation designed to bring us closer to the shared goal of full accessibility. I trust the comments provided herein will receive serious consideration. Sincerely, Steve Box Director, Corporate Programs and Business Services c.c. Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager Rick O Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor 1

2 City of Ottawa Response to Proposed Integrated Regulation The City is committed to the AODA and continuing to work towards making Ottawa a barrier-free and inclusive city for all. With the development of comprehensive provincial legislation and with the support of our Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC), the City is working to make accessibility a part of everyday business. Ottawa, like municipalities across Ontario is looking forward to 2025 and full implementation of the AODA. That being said, the City faces increased financial pressures and the implementation of these provincial standards, without corresponding funding, presents a significant barrier to our collective success. Implementation has been challenging in the context of the municipal tax system and ongoing budget pressures. Overall, the City is pleased with the harmonization of the standards into one IASR which complements the Customer Service Regulation; however, there are areas of overlap between the two regulations that should be streamlined to strengthen consistent application. For example, in areas such as accessible formats, communication supports, training and feedback, a streamlined approach would be beneficial. In addition to these general comments the section below outlines specific feedback on the AODA for your consideration: Compliance Timelines: For certain clauses such as training, procurement and WCAG, a two-year period between provincial and municipal compliance deadlines should be considered to allow municipalities time to receive and modify provincial materials, training and tools. Provincially Funded Tools and Materials: The City requests improved communication from the Ministry when new materials are created to assist in the implementation of the legislation in order to avoid duplication of efforts. A list of anticipated products and tentative timelines for publication would help municipalities better prioritize their workplans and would allow municipalities to focus attention on potential gaps in the provincial material. For example, the Pathways to Recreation Guidebook created by Parks and Recreation Ontario was extremely helpful and well received in Ottawa; however, we learned about this document only through our local network. If we had known that this guidebook was in development we may have redirected significant internal efforts that were focused on the same type of Ottawa-specific guidebook. The City would welcome any assistance the Province can provide in creating educational tools specific to the Business Improvement Areas (BIA). The BIA board responsibilities must be clearly defined to increase economic development and to help strengthen these partnerships. Products specifically designed for the private sector could reinforce these relationships. As the funding for BIAs comes from the municipal taxpayer, they often look to the City for promotional material and training opportunities to enhance accessibility in the private sector. 2

3 Compliance Reporting: More customization of the compliance reporting system is required to meet the needs of individual municipalities. For example, Ottawa s transit services are both federally regulated. The compliance reports should be adaptable to include only the questions that are applicable to each municipality. Since this functionality was not integrated into the on-line compliance reporting system, Ottawa was forced to answer no to a number of compliance questions when the more accurate response would have been not-applicable. Training: The training requirements in the Customer Service Standard and the IASR should be combined to be comprehensive and streamlined. The requirement where municipalities shall ensure that training is provided to: (c) all other persons who provide goods, services or facilities on behalf of the organization should be removed. The not-for-profit and the private sectors have their own obligation and compliance dates under this legislation and the City feels that the implied requirement to track training beyond our own employees is unduly labour intensive, unsustainable and highly bureaucratic. With over 10,000 contractors working for the City in any given year, the task of tracking their training on behalf of the Province is extremely onerous. The City recommends that organisations be required to keep their own records for their employees and volunteers. This section of the legislation would benefit from clarification as to who is responsible for the tracking of training obligations related to the AODA. The City is requesting that the Ontario Human Rights Commission video which is intended to meet the training obligations on the Code as it pertains to persons with disabilities, should be revised and shortened. The feedback received on this video has indicated that there is considerable overlap and repetition with the material covered in the AODA. Clear language and improved communications may reduce the amount of repetition and will eliminate confusion between the two pieces of legislation. Procurement: It is recommended that the Province explore outreach opportunities or a public awareness campaign to encourage the public sector to adopt the procurement clause of the AODA. The adoption of the procurement clause to the private sector would result in a broader penetration of accessibility and would improve the consistency of application between the public and private sectors. Consistency of application would help meet public expectations that are now often frustrated by the division between the public and private sectors particularly as it pertains to the built environment. The City would also like to bring to the province s attention the significant training and communications efforts required to introduce the procurement clause into the City s purchasing process and operational considerations. Although the City undertook an expansive training roll-out strategy, this clause requires substantive 3

4 ongoing support across the corporation. More information and educational material would be beneficial. Accessible Websites: The accessible website standards are complex in nature and it is recommended that they be reviewed in an attempt to simplify the requirement. The City requests that specific attention be given to the issues surrounding timelines and compliance deadlines. Design of Public Spaces (DOPS): The City is seeking clarification on the proposed enforcement methods for the DOPS. Will there be an inspection component? And if so, which level of government will be expected to carry out inspections? Currently municipalities do not have a compliance process in place nor do they have funding to ensure the monitoring or inspection of compliance with these standards moving forward. The capital costs associated with the DOPS, has at times, proven to be significant and far beyond the contingency funding allocated for capital projects. For budgeting purposes, it would be extremely helpful if the Province provided any and all detailed cost analyses that were undertaken with respect to DOPS. In addition, the City requests a specific allocation of capital funding from the Province to ensure the successful introduction of these standards into our ongoing capital program. The constructability and maintenance issues resulting from the DOPS are proving to be operationally problematic. The hidden costs of the ongoing maintenance and lifecycle issues are increasing budgetary pressures on municipalities. As the DOPS generally apply to exterior environments, the availability, quality and durability of specific materials to be utilized has proven to be difficult and costly to implement. Flexibility is required in this area. A number of the DOPS recommendations are vague and require further clarification to assist agencies with implementation (please refer to the attached questions from the International Municipal Signal Association s (IMSA) Ontario Chapter). The City of Ottawa is supportive of the IMSA s submission and looks forward to clarification on these issues. Ottawa is uniquely impacted by the amount of federally owned roadways and public spaces. This is further complicated with the extensive property controlled by the National Capital Commission. Improved coordination and a consistent approach to the built environment between all levels of government would strengthen the overall objectives of accessibility. Conclusion: The City of Ottawa remains committed to meeting the AODA and is well-positioned with respect to the implementation of the remaining IASR standards. All efforts on the part of the Province to remove duplication and streamline requirements would be appreciated. Additional tools and funding to help with implementation are welcome. The City 4

5 respectfully requests that the Province proactively inform municipalities of tools and materials that are planned or in development. The timely distribution of tools and material will facilitate the appropriate incorporation of these resources into our policies and practices to better meet compliance timelines. 5

6 IMSA Membership Questions regarding AODA Regulation 413/12 Questions are as follows: 1. Section indicates that a pedestrian crossover is defined in the HTA. Are PXO s (crosswalks) required to have accessible pedestrian signal equipment? 2. If a new 4 th leg is added to an existing signalized 3 leg intersection, are accessible signals required for the entire intersection? 3. If a pedestrian pushbutton is faulty, and a new button is installed, must the new button be an APS button? 4. In order to achieve uniformity within the Province, it cannot be left up to each jurisdiction to interpret when Accessible Pedestrian Signals are required during an intersection upgrade. Please provide better defined direction of when it is required. For example, if one pole is being relocated vs. all of the poles at an intersection. 5. Are Accessible Pedestrian Signals and the applicable civil requirements (tactile strips) required to be maintained during temporary signals/construction? 6. How are Accessible Pedestrian Signals to be utilized with intersections which have channelized right turn lanes with islands? 7. What is meant by Manual and Automatic features? This seems to imply that the button can automatically recognize the presence of pedestrians? 8. Under what Maintenance category of Minimum Maintenance Standards or response times does APS equipment fall under? Emergency? If a pole is knocked down and a temporary pole is reinstalled, does this temporary pole require APS? 9. 2 buttons on one pole requires a verbal announcement indicating which crossing is active. Why is this required if there are audible tones for each crossing? 10. The AODA legislation clearly indicates that if a contract is issued prior to Dec 31, 2012, AODA provisions are not required. Full compliance is required as of Jan 1, 2015, 2016, etc. depending on the government level. What is required between Jan 1, 2013 and the applicable date of full compliance? 11. The requirements set out that the button shall be 1.5m from the edge of the curb. This will add additional disruption to the existing sidewalk including pedestrians in wheelchairs, walkers, etc. as typical sidewalk widths are 2.5m at an intersection. The offset is also quite close to the travel lane especially when the pedestrian is visually impaired. This offset may also not be achieved do to utilities. What options or guidance can be provided for these situations to ensure uniformity across the Province. 12. Are rural intersections expected to be designed in similar fashion as Urban intersections? Yes most rural intersections have pedestrian crosswalks, but they do not include sidewalk, curbs etc. 6